tv [untitled] December 5, 2010 5:30pm-6:00pm PST
the commission approved the selection to operate at the scott street entrance from 3:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. a one-year permit with a one- year extension. as i noted, it will be at golden gate park right off of martin luther king drive 11:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.. the department will require approval for equipment, menu, and prices. they are required to clean up and maintain the space within 100 feet of the concession as well as offer garbage,
recycling, and compost to customers. we also asked them not to serve food that is particularly appealing to the wildlife and to instruct customers not to feed wildlife as well as those cited to instructing customers not to do so. the financial projections are the following. the greater of the minimum guarantee of $12,000 or a percentage rent that is 15% of gross sales. the department staff estimates $22,400 per year and i should know that the revenue generated goes back into the marine of fund -- marina green fund. i won't go through the list, but it was quite extensive. we considered the placement of
golden gate park. we have received support for this proposal, unanimous support from the selection panel. the office of economic and work- force development, the chamber of commerce, and we received support from many community members. commissioner harrison: i notice that a lot of these that we are leasing with have promised to keep the place clean and picked up. do we have anyone that goes back and checked on these things to make sure they are complying? >> we have the community that i am pretty sure will let us know if the area is not left clean. we also do quarterly power -- park evaluations.
as a department, we like to implement a system where they do periodic checks. president buell: thank you. >> any public comment on this item? >> i am with several organizations, but i have been listening here and i see this menu. it looks like disneyland to me. are we turning our part in disneyland? -- park into disneyland? parks should not be revenue
generators. it is for people to enjoy. i wish you would consider that. thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? public comment is closed. president buell: commissioners? it has been moved and seconded. all in favor? it's unanimous. thank you. >> we are on item number eight. >> i will do my best not to cough into the microphone and i will try to be brief. since may of 2010 approved the implementation plan for the community operation fund, to
facilitate in to manage the distribution of the applications for the pilot round of the community opportunity fund, when they make recommendations of project awards for the community opportunity fund. as far as outreach strategy is concerned, our goal was to go as broadly and deeply in the neighborhoods as we could. we held many meetings across the city. different kinds of day at different times of the week to accommodate as many people as possible. i also met individually with potential applicants that for not available to make it to those meetings. every potential applicant was accommodated. as a result of those meetings, we had 75 attendees, 25% -- just
over 20% of them applied. we had 16 applications to request 1.5 $6 million. many districts were represented, with district 11 having the most applications. aheaof the applications were vey high quality. that is a credit to the applicants into our partners. of the 60 applications, her two of them were considered a menu projects. i will be presenting again in february for how to revise the process. but i think the fact that there were so many people speak to the challenges of the menu system. they were relatively small and
simple projects. they were actually disqualified from the process. one thing that we are discussing and working with members of the task force is to reconsider a small, medium, large purses a large pot. as for the project selection process itself, i have included the selection committee package that was distributed to the members of the committee as was the members. each member of the committee reviewed the criteria and reported to each other. we took those scores and review each application as a group. the committee came to an agreement about which project best fits the criteria in the majority vote to approve projects.
i did not vote on recommendations, and i say that the committee -- several applicants have had questions about the criteria and the wording. the committee has made recommendations to expand the program beyond $500,000 for the first round. we are recommending adding approximately 30%. we wanted to strike a balance and not over fund given it is a pilot round, but there is no reason for good projects to have to reapply for another round and create more. of the projects we have recommended for words, they
represent the total commitment of $298,000. that is a 45% leveraged by the recreation and parks department. you have the drawings of the projects and the details of the projects. in the amount of $24,450, it includes improvements to the quality of the playground by supplementing the existing with ada improvements. improving asphalt pathways. the request for $25,000 includes safety improvements like directional cited in information kiosks. -- signage and directinformation
kiosks. they would provide a route from the right of way. the community garden is $234,764 and represents a phase one construction of the garden and improvements at the site including demolition. the natural area, to complement the existing boardwalk and provided benches and interpreted cited to explain the flora and fauna and the area -- in the area. the installation of several bike racks. we anticipate some savings from that to provide the bike racks.
finally, the last project is pioneer park. the project proposal addresses safety concerns including new fencing and lighting. since the committee has made its recommendations, all of them that were not funded or awarded, we provide all of them with feedback from the committee to facilitate them getting all of their answers and a very specific recommendations. i would also briefly like to recognize commissioner harrison and several of the selection committee members. president buell: thank you. commissioner harrison: one of the things i wanted to do is come and -- commend jake.
he met with every one of those people. he offered his time and expertise to do whatever is necessary to bring it forward. the results were impressive. on some of the applications, they were very well done and give us a good indication of what they wanted to do out there. i wanted to thank j. carroll of the work he has put an end of the work he is going to continue to do. again, thank you, jay. -- jake. president buell: i had a few comments from people that were not selected. is it your sense that the process can be improved in the next round and we have learned a lot? >> i have pages of comments from both applicants whose projects were awarded and applicants whose projects were not awarded. as well as committee members.
ed before rte. 2, applications will be released in march. i am currently compiling all of that data and i will be coming back with recommendations to improve round 2. commissioner lee: i just had a question on process. with regard to the leverage to match, are you finding the projects once the message is that? -- match is met? what is that process? >> the project cannot be made whole until the leverages have been reached. for the majority of these projects, there are two pieces of leverage. the cash has been secured for
these projects. if it indicates these are not secured, we cannot move forward until the money is in hand. some of the projects include volunteer hours. >> how are the funds coming in? >> it depends on the sponsor. sometimes the fiscal sponsor is simply an individual and will be receiving the funding directly. commissioner lee: and you will be coming back and showing us which ones match at the conclusion -- >> in order to award contracts, i will need to come back to you with a plan for how that is funded. that includes the opportunity fund as well as the leverage.
>> we have public comment. [reads names] >> my name is meredith thomas, i am the executive director of the parks council. i want to commend the department for reaching this point. this portion was something they advocated to have improved because not every park will be involved. we have a nearly $2 billion capital deficit. we can't get to every part. the opportunity fund is a chance for folks to step up and say that we have a project in mind and we will make sure it happens, leveraging through storage shed and volunteerism. we believe it helps enhance the park as a whole.
i was on the task force that developed the framework, and my past job was that a foundation. i can tell you that you are always going to learn things. you have seven very worthy projects that are going to make positive changes. i am also committed to helping the department improve the process for route to -- round two. if there is ever an opportunity, we are happy to help. i wanted to thank the department for their hard work had for the selection committee for taking it very seriously. we think it will result in some great improvements. >> i am from the geneva a
community garden. i wanted to say that our community is so excited about the project and we are delighted to be included in the first round of this funding. it has been some hopeful since we started working on this. -- so helpful since we started this. jake has been very helpful. marvin yee has been helpful with budgets, drawings, and really great support advise. and also, this is my third time here to get approval, and we are excited about this going forward.
>> linda? >> i am here representing the advisory members. i will be reporting back about what i feel is a very successful ground. it is the early stages, even prior to the submission of the documentation we are talking about. as far as a member of the committee, i would like to acknowledge jake. we took it very seriously. it was three times the ask. having the knowledge that the tests put together a good,
strong package. we were very cognizant of what the opportunity fund was asking for. some of the discussions included remembering what the community put this on the ballot for. and what about the taxpayer? we had a lot of conversations. it was almost like peeling layers of an onion. we would take it home, and speaking for myself, it would become my nightly reading. as you peel away the layers and you started putting them against the different areas that jake was guiding us, it was very clear which ones needed to be brought up and which ones needed behalf graded lower. i think the list you have in front of you is a very strong
less. -- list. [chime] president buell: thank you. >> mike. just to remind folks, we need everyone to take d.c., please. >> i served as the landscape architect. i just want to keep it brief and to mention that i feel the selection process was very fair. some projects that were not selected did receive higher scores, hub of a lot of those projects did not fulfill the selection criteria as was outlined. in terms of what was selected, i feel that these projects did a fantastic job in terms of
meeting every criteria that was required on the list independent of their score that we have -- that we may have come up with in the end. i feel that the recommendations that we made our solid recommendations. -- are solid recommendations. >> good afternoon, commissionaires. -- commissioners. we work with both of the capital and operations program to put together the community garden. we submitted our application to the committee, they apply the
criteria. there is one set of scores for these. there was no subsequent ranking after the discussion. then there were some talks, and we were not recommended for funding. i met with jake. the concerns that were put forward a scene to do with operations. we fulfill the operations requirement which is to work with the supervisor and acting superintendent. i got his signature. there are for the things to work out. he is committed to working with us. we have an mlu in place, it just needs to be modified. these are things that can be worked out while we are being funded. we feel that our project,
because it came in first, it should be funded in the first round. i just want to say that it is the mayor's directive to have education, to have you guys make that happen for the community. when a school pta is encouraged all the way along by operations capital to submit against the highest score and are not funded, there is a problem with the process. >> can you tell me what the amount was? >> we apply for $198,000. >> is that money in place now? >> yes. >> i think that we can get staff to comment on this.
if they can comment on what has been said. >> we have talked about this i think that in describing the overall selection process, the point at which the project was scored first is when the individual scores were reported that. as the committee work to the process of adhering to the criteria, several issues, some had to do with the details of the application.
some had to do with issues of governance and access to the property. as those issues came up, take committee and bounced the project and it did not meet the current criteria as well as the projects that we have recommended. >> i would hate to see someone to go through all of this and be ready to go on an issue that i personally find important. are there ways to mitigate the concerns of the committee so that in the next round this might have some opportunity? >> i have copies of the committee's representation. the director of operations is committed to helping. >> but don't want to get into too many specifics but there's more to this process than the
scoring. i have some concerns about the public access to the park. i hope that the petitioners will work this out. there's more to this than just the scoring issue. your application was very strong and very well done. i like it and i am sure that many other people like it but there were other factors during discussion that came off that did not score as high. i hope that does not preclude you from a second to go round. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i would like to congratulate
commissioner harrison and the staff. it looks like a lot of work went into this and nothing but good is coming out of the other end of the process. congratulations. >> i just would like to echo your congratulations and a time of scarce resources and some challenging decisions we have to make, this is nothing but good news. this is the product of the commitment to our parks and the park spawned in which a very good decision was made to put aside a pot of money for community-driven projects. this is the first round of funding, the first fruit of that seat that was planted. i would like to thank our staff who really shepherded the community opportunity fund task force in cooperation with
meredith thomas. i don't remember every single committee that participated but these are very challenging conversations. even though we have $5 million, we have maybe 100 times the need. it just designing a program was about how we were going to if a minister the program in a monumental and delivered his undertaking. i would like to offer my thanks to jake. in one of the smartest moves we have made, we actually hired him. he has come on with great talent and experience. he has shepherded this process incredibly well. i would also like to think commissioner harrison and other members of the selection committee to all the time that
they spent considering these applications. whether a neighborhood group was awarded funding. i would like to thank those who took the time to apply. these are our park and the community leaders. everyone who applied are the folks who are most committed to stretching every dollar we can in this tough climate and making these neighborhoods as seen and safe as they can. this first round was $500,000. there are more projects to come. i would like to celebrate what is really 8 miniparks initiative. >> thank you. with that, we can entertain a motion. >> move to improve. >> seconded. >> any comments? >> this passes unanimously.